Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 14:17:18 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav <des@des.no>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: compiling world with optimization Message-ID: <20040118221718.GE65333@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <20040116095217.GG59417@starjuice.net> References: <2198.148.121.98.106.1074170436.squirrel@mail.carebears.mine.nu> <xzpy8s9fca5.fsf@dwp.des.no> <20040116095217.GG59417@starjuice.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 11:52:17AM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > On (2004/01/15 16:43), Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote: > > > > I dont know if you care, but buildworld will fail with some > > > optimizations. > > > > No, we don't care. See /usr/share/examples/etc/make.conf: > > > > # CFLAGS controls the compiler settings used when compiling C code. > > # Note that optimization settings above -O (-O2, ...) are not recommended > > # or supported for compiling the world or the kernel > > It's true that most of us don't care. However, I remember some folks > (kan and obrien?) saying that they have an interest in seeing these > fixed in the gcc distribution. > > Have I misremembered? Yep. In my opinion -O2 bad code production bugs are due to bugs in FreeBSD code that breaks standards (alias bugs, etc..) or has bugs in the inline assembly. This is no long a GCC problem -- if it is give me a test case and I'll see it gets fixed.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040118221718.GE65333>